Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00703-JJF Document 62 Filed O9/O2/2005 Page 1 of 2
Murphy S padaro & Landon
ATTORNEYS
1011 CENTRE ROAD, SUITE 210
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19805
PHONE 302.472.81OO
FAX 3°2‘"2 BHS Jowarnan L. PARSHALL
[email protected]
September 2, 2005
VIA HAND DELIVERY & E-FILE
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
United States District Court for the
District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Lock Box 27
Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: Cathy D. Brooks-McCollum v. Emerald Ridge Service Corporation
Board of Directors, etal.
C.A. No. 04-0703 (JJF)
Dear Judge Farnan:
I represent the defendants other than Mr. Kafader and Ferry Joseph & Pearce. I
write to respond to plaintiff s motion for reargument (D.I. 61) of the Court’s August 25,
2005 order (D.I. 60) denying various motions, including plaintiff s "Motion to Correct"
(D.I. 54) and her "Corrective Motion" (D.l. 52). Specifically, plaintiff appears to seek
reargument of that part of the Courfs decision that declined to alter the caption to make
Emerald Ridge Service Corporation a plaintiff.
This Court has held: "l\/lotions for reargument or reconsideration should be
granted sparingly and may not be used to rehash arguments which have already been
briefed by the parties and decided by the Court.” Ciena Cogg. v. Corvis Corp., 352
F.Supp. 526, 527 (D. Del. 2005). Plaintiff does not dispute that her complaint raises
derivative claims belonging to the corporation — indeed "derivative" appears in both the
as-filed caption and the proposed modified caption. See D.l. 1, 52 & 54. Defendants
demonstrated in the briefing on the motions that under Delaware law the corporation is
a nominal defendant in a derivative action. D.l. 55 at 3 n. 1. The Court so held.
August 25 Order (D.I. 60) at 2, citing Maldonado v. Flynn, 413 A.2d 1251, 1255 (Del.
Ch. 1980), rev ’d on other grounds, Zapata Cogp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779 (Del.
1981).
00123623

Case 1:04-cv-00703-JJF Document 62 Filed O9/O2/2005 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Joseph .l. Farnan, Jr.
September 2, 2005
Page 2 0f2
Plaintiff cites no authority to contradict Maldonado. The motion is simply a
rehash of arguments previously made by plaintiff and rejected by the Court.
Accordingly, the motion should be denied.
Respectfully yours,
Jdiiathan L. Parshall
Cc: Clerk of the Court (by e-file)
Cathy D. Brooks-McCollum (by mail)
Robert K. Pearce, Esq. (via e-file)
00122.622

Case 1:04-cv-00703-JJF

Document 62

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00703-JJF

Document 62

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 2 of 2